| ||||||||||||
N.J. Governor-Elect's Education Agenda Eyed By Catherine Gewertz The election of Republican Chris Christie as New Jersey’s next governor has drawn cheers from the state’s charter school and voucher advocates, even as it sparks worry that his promise to reduce taxes and spending in the face of a massive budget shortfall could result in cuts to precollegiate education.
Mr. Christie, who beat Democratic Gov. Jon S. Corzine in the Nov. 3 contest, wasted no time sending signals of support for urban education and for charter schools. ("Election Offers Varied Impact for Education," Nov. 4, 2009, “…The Best Public Education’ “…In New Jersey, incumbent Gov. Jon S. Corzine, a Democrat, based his campaign in part on his education record. But voters instead backed Republican Christopher J. Christie, a former U.S. attorney whose education agenda emphasized expanding school choice in K-12 education and taking steps to make New Jersey a more attractive place for students to attend, and complete, college..”)
Mr. Christie promised in his victory speech yesterday that he would work to rein in state spending and “suffocating taxes,” and revamp a state government “that was out of control.”
Although the Republican made no mention of his plans for schools in the speech, he did touch on his own education, recalling how his parents moved the family from Newark to Livingston, N.J., when he was five years old.
“They wanted our family to have the best public education we could possibly have, and everything that I’ve been lucky to become, the foundation was laid for that in those schools, in those years, by great teachers and by my great parents,” he told supporters gathered in a hotel ballroom in Parsippany, N.J.)
The day after his election, he visited a charter school in his hometown of Newark. Five days later, he appeared at a high school in suburban Hamilton, where he pledged to maintain support for K-12 education despite a looming $8 billion deficit in the state’s $29 billion budget.
A former federal prosecutor known for ferreting out public corruption, Mr. Christie is the first Republican to win the state’s top job since Christine Todd Whitman, who was first elected in 1993 and was re-elected to a second term. Reflecting deep public resentment about the state’s tax rates, Mr. Christie has said he would reduce income and sales taxes, and reinstate property-tax rebates. He says he will rein in spending, but has provided little detail.
Charters and Vouchers
Mr. Christie wants to see more charter schools open in New Jersey, which currently has 68 of the quasi-independent public schools. He also supports something New Jersey lawmakers have repeatedly rejected: publicly financed vouchers that would allow urban schoolchildren to attend nonpublic schools. He has also advocated tightening the current 4 percent cap on the growth of school district budgets by reducing or eliminating exceptions to that cap.
Charter school advocates hope Mr. Christie can build legislative support for funding charter schools on a par with regular public schools. Currently, they receive 90 percent of the amount regular schools get, with no money for facilities.
“We are very hopeful about what this means for the charter school movement in New Jersey,” said Carlos Lejnieks, the chairman of the board of the New Jersey Public Charter Schools Association. “The next step is to have the money follow the words.”
The Rev. Reginald T. Jackson, the executive director of the Black Ministers’ Council of New Jersey and a school board member in the 5.600-student Orange district, said Mr. Christie’s support of vouchers and charters is encouraging for urban parents, since the primary beneficiaries of more school choice would be low-income families.
Dana E. Egreczky, the senior vice president for workforce development at the New Jersey Chamber of Commerce, which has pushed for stronger accountability in the state’s schools, said that her organization has taken no position on vouchers, but that it is concerned that creating such a program could dilute accountability by allowing more students to be exempt from the state testing program.
Joseph Cryan, the Democrat who chairs the state Assembly’s education committee, is predicting a legislative dead end for many of Mr. Christie’s education ideas, because of “philosophical differences” with the Democratic-controlled legislature or budgetary realities.
The legislature is “highly unlikely” to embrace vouchers, Mr. Cryan said. Lawmakers might be more open to boosting funding for charter schools, but this year’s budget woes make that a virtual impossibility, he said.
He predicted that legislators would have “zero openness” to the idea of eliminating exceptions to the cap on district budget growth, “because we live in the real world, where gas prices fluctuate, and health-insurance costs fluctuate, and we have to manage realistically.”
Some Skeptics
Democrat Shirley K. Turner, the chairwoman of the Senate education committee, said she was “delighted” to see Mr. Christie place a high priority on urban education, but said relying on charter schools and vouchers to improve education, without addressing unemployment, poor housing, and other problems, wouldn’t work.
Ms. Turner said the governor-elect would not be able to cut taxes, restore property-tax rebates, close the $8 billion budget hole, pay more for vouchers and charter schools, and fully fund the state’s school finance formula.
“There is no way in the world he can do all of that. The money is not there to pay the bills,” she said. “Before it’s all over, he’s going to wish he had asked for a recount.”
Spokesmen for Mr. Christie did not return calls and e-mails seeking comment for this story.
One of Mr. Christie’s most ardent opponents in the campaign was the 200,000-member New Jersey Education Association. The governor-elect has said that in negotiating with public employees’ unions, he will represent the taxpayer.
The NJEA does not oppose charter schools, but finds Mr. Christie’s stance on vouchers “very troubling,” said President Barbara Keshishian. She also said her union would oppose any attempts to tighten the cap on school district budget growth, and was “disappointed” in Mr. Christie’s opposition to the planned expansion of the state’s preschool program.
The union is eager to know whether the governor-elect will follow through on his stated commitment to protect K-12 education funding, she said.
The New Jersey School Boards Association is watching closely, too. The group agrees that property taxes carry too much of the K-12 funding burden—60 percent—but shifting more of that burden to state revenue sources is unlikely under a governor who plans to cut taxes, said Frank Belluscio, a spokesman for the group. And a reduction in state education funding could drive up property taxes and force local education cuts, he said.
However warm or wary their reactions to Mr. Christie’s election, most advocates are waiting to see how his actions compare with his campaign rhetoric.
“There is electioneering, and there is governing,” Ms. Egreczky said. “Who knows what will happen? Once the administration gets its feet firmly planted, we’ll see where it all goes.”
Vol. 29, Issue 12
Rules Set for $4 Billion 'Race to Top' Contest
By Michele McNeil For a good shot at the $4 billion in grants from the federal Race to the Top Fund, states will need to make a persuasive case for their education reform agenda, demonstrate significant buy-in from local school districts, and develop plans to evaluate teachers and principals based on student performance, according to final regulations set for release Thursday by the U.S. Department of Education.
Those three factors will rank as the most important to U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan and his staff as they weigh states’ applications based on more than 30 criteria
At stake for states is a slice of the biggest single discretionary pool of education money in the economic-stimulus package passed by Congress in February—a $4.35 billion prize, of which $350 million has been pledged to help states develop common assessments as part of a separate nationwide effort.
Each winning state’s share of what’s left will depend on its population of children ages 5-17, according to nonbinding estimates
At the high end, the four biggest states—California, Florida, New York, and Texas—could get between $350 million and $700 million each. At the low end are the smallest student-population states, such as New Mexico, Delaware, and Vermont, which could get between $20 million and $75 million each.
To win funding, states will have to do much more than lift their charter school caps, or remove data firewalls between student and teacher data, said Mr. Duncan, who pushed those two issues in recent months to get states ready for the competition, which he has described as America’s education “moonshot.”
“This is not about getting in the game, this is about winning,” he said in an interview Wednesday. “There will be a lot more losers than winners.”
Many Revisions
The final regulations come after the department received 1,161 comments about the draft version during a 30-day comment period that ended in August, many criticizing the plan for being a one-size-fits-all approach to education reform.
The comments also included biting criticism from the national teachers’ unions, which objected to the emphasis on using student test scores in teacher-evaluation systems. ("Proposed 'Race to Top' Rules Seen as Prescriptive," Sept. 14, 2009.)
The department, however, largely stuck to its original approach, giving states a clear, detailed—though slightly revised—blueprint for how to win Race to the Top grants.
The top three criteria are “either the biggest indicators that ... you could really make a significant breakthrough, or the things we thought are the biggest levers for change,” said Joanne Weiss, the department’s director of Race to the Top.
In a nod to teachers’ union concerns, the final regulations make clear that student test scores should be just one component of a teacher- or principal-evaluation system. The regulations now require that such systems include multiple measures, including growth in student test scores.
“I think the department figured out a way to strike a balance between what is needed to get systemwide improvement for kids and schools, and how to measure that,” said Randi Weingarten, the president of the 1.4 million-member American Federation of Teachers, who was generally encouraged by the final regulations.
The 3.2 million-member National Education Association, which was particularly harsh in its initial review of the comments, toned down its criticisms this time. President Dennis Van Roekel, in a statement, praised the department’s requirement for multiple measures of evaluating teachers as a “solid reaffirmation of our belief that a student, like a teacher, is more than a test score.” But, he said, “We are disappointed that the administration continues to focus so heavily on tying students’ test scores to individual teachers.”
Overall, though, support from state and local teachers’ unions will earn a small number of points for states as they demonstrate stakeholder buy-in. And while teacher- and principal-evaluation systems must be designed with “involvement” from teachers and principals, the regulations do not define how involved those parties must be.
Teacher quality looms large in the department’s thinking, as reflected in the number of points to be awarded for various education reform priorities under the 500-point scale that will be used to weigh states’ applications.
The single biggest, and thus most important, category for states is improving teacher and principal effectiveness, worth 138 points. To put that in perspective, it’s more important than improving data systems (47 points possible), and turning around the lowest-achieving schools (50 points possible), combined.
Reform Agenda
States’ reform agendas take on a more prominent role in the final regulations.
A new category requires each state to clearly articulate its education reform agenda and prove that it has the capacity to carry it out. This entire section, which also asks states to demonstrate local school district support and buy-in from state teachers’ unions, is worth the second-most points possible, just behind the category on teacher effectiveness.
“It became clear that a lot of states were treating [the criteria] as a checklist. There was no big picture,” Ms. Weiss said. “Now this is where they build their case.”
As to why the department is placing such a premium on local school district support, look no further than the statewide elections of 2010.
Next year, a number of governors and chief state school officers will be up for election—and a state’s governor, chief state school officer, and state school board president must all sign a Race to the Top application for it to be considered. Undoubtedly, grants will go to some states that will subsequently see a turnover in those high offices, and federal officials are concerned about continuity.
“This is not a governor’s plan, this is not a chief’s plan. We’re trying to reward systems, and systems are bigger than any one individual,” Mr. Duncan said in the interview. “You invest in the management team. This is not about investing in charismatic leaders.”
Local school district support is so important that in the event of a tie in states’ scores, and if there isn’t enough money to fund all of them, then the strength of districts’ commitment is the tiebreaker.
Successive Rounds
The awards will be given out in two rounds, with the first applications due in mid-January. A second round of applications, for those who didn’t apply or win the first time, will be due June 1. The department must make all awards by Sept. 30, 2010.
About 125 judges will be selected from a pool of 1,400 applicants who will go through rigorous training and be supervised by department staff and other monitors to ensure the grades are being applied as evenly as possible.
For all of the complexity of the scoring rubric, the final awards process will be relatively simple. The scores of all of the applications will be ranked in order and will be funded in that order until the money is gone. Although Mr. Duncan will have the final say, Ms. Weiss said, he will have to make a strong case if he decides to deviate from the scores. The winning and losing applications, along with their scores, will be made public.
Based on the grading scale, it’s already clear that some states will start out at a disadvantage.
Texas and Alaska each will lose up to 40 points for not joining the Common Core State Standards Initiative led by the Washington-based National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State Schools Officers. ("States Slow Standards Work Amid 'Common Core' Push," Nov. 11, 2009.)
And 11 states stand to lose up to 32 points each for not having a charter-school law: Alabama, Kentucky, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Nebraska, South Dakota, Vermont, Washington, and West Virginia.
The elimination of charter school caps, which had been a major part of Mr. Duncan’s speeches in recent months, plays a lesser role. In the regulations, the department acknowledges that not all caps are equal, and allows for states to get some points if they don’t have caps that severely inhibit charter school growth.
Among the other changes in the final regulations:
•States must have their applications approved for Phase 2 of the stimulus program’s State Fiscal Stabilization Fund to be eligible for Race to the Top awards.
•In order to earn all the points possible, states will have until Aug. 2, 2010, to adopt the Common Core standards in math and English/language arts that are being developed. (A survey by the National Governors Association showed that 25 states say it will take six months or longer to adopt the standards, which are not scheduled to be released in draft form until December.)
•States will not be able to use any of their Race to the Top award money to pay for costs related to their own individual state testing systems. (The department wants to support common assessments, not individual state test systems.)
•The department, after receiving criticism that not all states are good environments for charter schools, will now allow states without charter schools to make the case that they have other, autonomous, innovative public school options.
•The department, in response to criticism from advocates, removed references to using students with disabilities’ Individualized Education Program plans as a means to measure student achievement.
Aid to Districts
The regulations also clarify how the money will be distributed down to the district level.
According to the stimulus law, at least 50 percent of the funds must be directed to local school districts via the formula for Title I aid for disadvantaged students. The department has made clear that states only have to send money to districts that have agreed to participate in Race to the Top reforms. In addition, states will also be able to use their award money to help turn around persistently failing high schools. The other 50 percent of the money, states can use at their discretion.
Even with this ambitious education reform competition, and $4 billion in incentive money to hand out, some education advocates expected more from the competition.
Andy Smarick, who has been tracking the stimulus package as a distinguished visiting fellow with the Washington-based Thomas B. Fordham Institute, noted that there was little emphasis in the final regulations as to how states spent the first round of their State Fiscal Stabilization Fund money. He said that’s especially troubling given that Secretary Duncan told states they should spend the money wisely or be at a competitive disadvantage for Race to the Top.
“If you don’t do national standards you lose 40 points, but if you’ve wasted $3 billion in stimulus money, you lose 5 points,” Mr. Smarick said, referring to the scoring rubric.
Amy Wilkins, of the Washington-based Education Trust, said the department’s single-minded focus on teacher effectiveness—based largely on student test scores—leaves out a large swath of teachers: those in the early grades, who teach untested subjects, and in high schools.
The department ignores other factors that contribute to teacher quality, such as experience, teachers’ college majors, scores on licensure exams, and certification status, said Ms. Wilkins, the vice president of government affairs and communications at the Education Trust, which advocates on behalf of low-income and minority students.
However, Mr. Duncan has emphasized that the department must walk a fine line between being overly prescriptive, and setting broad goals. He has said that states must present ambitious plans that promise to dramatically change the trajectory of student achievement, or they “simply won’t win” a Race to the Top grant.
“The great promise was that Arne [Duncan] had the real opportunity for unfettered boldness,” Ms. Wilkins said, especially since the Race to the Top regulations didn’t have to be negotiated through Congress.
In addition, the award ranges based on population, and the clear-cut scoring rubric, leave “no incentive for states to be particularly bold,” she said.
“[The department] could have really demanded a lot in exchange for unprecedented money,” said Ms. Wilkins, who called Mr. Duncan’s description of the competition an overstatement. “It ain’t a moonshot.”
Vol. 29, Issue 12
